Talk:Communist terrorism/Archive 2

Dojarca!
Please stop move-warring. The title of this article was "Communist terrorism" since that's what the article is about. You then have tried to move it to "Leftist terrorism" three times already, without bothering to start an RM, and opened up a RfC only under pressure. Please move it to its original title until RfC concludes or open up an RM.radek (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And seriously, trying to use the fact that I disagree with you on this as a way to "get me" is pretty low. Why can't you make a decent argument and discuss things, the way it's supposed to happen?radek (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Radek, it seems that you and Biophys won't rest before you would insert these, I would say, "compilations" to virtually every article in WP?
 * You have already:
 * 1.State-sponsored_terrorism
 * 2. Terrorism in Russia
 * These article have the same names like Kautsky. The same theory. How many POV forks do you need to create to have a nice day?


 * I have appreciated the new name Terrorism in Russia to which it was renamed from Russia and state terrorism.


 * 1. Now comment to this article. Obviously your suggested title Communist terrorism is even worse than Leftist terrorism. Not all communists are terrorists, but for leftist ones Trotsky is an authority, right?
 * 2. All the evaluation of "theoretical ground" for communism in the article is take from one source - Richard Pipes. It's enough to look at his article for Controversy in order to see how far have you gone from NPOV citing him there.
 * 3. Of course defectors, who now are old and crave for more pension, like Lunev, Suvorov, Mitrokhin are very reliable NPOV sources.
 * 4.The passage on allegedly planned biological terrorism acts is especially lucrative. Should we take X-Files movie as the evidence of US government biological terror against own population?Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vlad, what? Are you saying this article should be under "Leftist terrorism" or "Communist terrorism" because I can't tell?radek (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is just one of the problems. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vlad, this was a POV-fork of Political terrorism until the web brigade arrived. The main problem with this article is that it in its Radeksz-Biophys version designed as an attack on the USSR to present it as a "terrorist state" (and present political repressions and Red Terror as a form of terrorism, which is OR or highly non-neutral).--Dojarca (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dojarca, I have taken notice of this. As I have expected no mentioning of White terror. Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz and Petlura pogroms are, of course, acts of war, and not of terrorism. Brilliant example of Piotrus cabal NPOV. Just wondering why they haven't DYK'ed it. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am especially admired to see that in Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz his pogroms are not mentioned at all!!! Just look into Russian Wikipedia article! The witnesses of terror are being cited and no signle word in Polish and English WP.


 * By the way. A good citation of ... Josef Pilsudski about Stanisław Bułak-Bałachowicz. "...not only bandit, but a man who today is Russian, tommorow is Polish, the day after tommorow is Belarusian, and the next day is Negro". | Source. Vlad fedorov (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Once again, I have no idea what you're talking about.radek (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Learning Civil war in Russia to understand the reason of Red terror is harder then citing here erroneous and opinionated Pipes. Please try to familiarize yourself first with one of the reasons why Red terror evolved []. Vlad fedorov (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You realize that you're following a nonsequitur with a nonsequitur? I still don't know what you're talking about - I mean I understand the various pieces, but I have no idea how their supposed to fit together or what they're relevance is.radek (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So, dear Radek, I will add this in time to the article. Thank you for consensus in understanding various pieces. Wish you happy nonsequitur in your correspondence, though. Vlad fedorov (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a wholly unencyclopedic article. It begins by coining a term "communist terrorism" that is not found in any of the sources and goes downhill from there.  It's all original research supporting a conspiracy theory.  See also Communist genocide or whatever its called now for the sister article.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Views of Marxism theoreticians and leaders
An editor restored a deletion by an IP from a book called: First In-depth Biography Based on Explosive New Documents from Russia's Secret Archives that referred to a quote from Karl Marx which appears to connect him with Eastern European terrorism. Although I am unfamiliar with this book, I cannot find any reference to the quote. Could someone please provide evidence that the quote appeared in Marx's writings. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

SYNTH, POV, and COATTRACK
I do not think it is valid to mix state terror tactics under Communist regimes with various terrorist organizations somehow connected to communism. To illustrate multiple issues with this article, Viet Cong (listed here as a communist terrorist organization) is not terrorist but rather a liberation army, which is quite different. Another SYNTH is adding here Soviet plans for terror against USA and NATO, created at the peak of the Cold war. (Igny (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC))
 * A "liberation army" (cough, cough)? I don't think these objections or the tags are well founded.  Viet Cong and the Soviet State were both communist entities engaging in terror.  Reliable sources support the assertions and treating them together as a subject (hence no SYN).  This seems to be a case of [WP:I don't like it]. Mamalujo (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From Viet Cong :
 * The Vietcong (Việt Cộng), or National Liberation Front, was a political organisation and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War (1959–1975).
 * Try searching for "terrorist" in that article and you'll only find Category:Organizations formerly designated as terrorist The only thing I do not like it here is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool (Igny (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Terrorist is often used as a POV term for enemy combatants and it therefore is POV to include them in the article. During the Cold War American conservatives promoted a conspiracy theory that the Soviet Union was behind all terrorism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that it's called the "National Liberation Front" does not mean that it was a liberation army any more that that the German Democratic Republic was democratic. Besides, even if it was a "liberation army", such a thing is not mutally exclusive with being a terrorist organization. With regard to terrorism in that article, please read more closely:


 * "Many Vietcong units operated at night,[44] and employed terror as a standard tactic.[45] Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Vietcong.[46] Squads were assigned monthly assassination quotas.[47] Government employees, especially village and district heads, were the most common targets. But there were a wide variety of targets, including clinics and medical personnel.[48] Notable Vietcong atrocities include 48 killed in the bombing of My Canh floating restaurant in Saigon in June 1965[49] and a massacre of 252 Montagnards in the village of Đắk Sơn in December 1967 using flamethrowers.[50]"


 * Or you could read this source from the article. By accepted standards and definitions, the Viet Cong were plainly a terrorist organization.  Communists, to this day, are second only to radical Islamists as a sponsor of terror.  Hardly propaganda. Mamalujo (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At best, this is a war crime, on par with use of agent orange, not a terrorist act. Believe me this is a propaganda with a bit of brainwashing. (Igny (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The entire article is riddled with SYNTH problems. Picking one among the bunch is almost beside the point.  Needless to say, I agree with Igny and The Four Deuces on this.  Please, folks, if you do choose to add more stuff to this article, make sure it actually discusses something it calls "communist terrorism." csloat (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Another laughable example is Sandinista National Liberation Front, who actually fought CIA sponsored terrorists, Contras, after throwing Anastasio Somoza Debayle's dictatorship. Did the guy who added it to the list of communist terrorists even read the article about them??? (Igny (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

Soviet and USA plans and intentions in Cold War
There is a lot of speculation on Google over what Soviets or USA wanted or planned to do during the Cold War. Since we do not have any article on this topic, I could not find a suitable location for this section of this article. But it is as sure as hell does not belong to this article. Unless I hear some constructive proposals in near future, I will simply remove it from here. (Igny (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

After thinking for a little while, feeling WP:BOLD, I decided to remove this section as highly speculative, and largely irrelevant to this topic. You may restore the content in some other more suitable article. (Igny (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Excellent move. I've deleted some more irrelevant stuff from the lead and the first section, but there is a LOT more that needs to go here.  Ultimately I don't think this article is sustainable without some sources identifying "communist terrorism" as some kind of specific entity.  Combining random thoughts on "revolutionary terror" and "state-sponsored terror" is not helpful; we need the sources themselves to make these connections. csloat (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I screwed up your deletion, sorry about that, heh. csloat (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to restore this section of KGB activities during Cold war, please give your rationale here. (Igny (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

unsourced material removed
I've removed a lot of the unsourced material; it was flagged in August 2008 and citations have yet to be found. I also removed a list of left-wing groups that seemed only tangentially related here. Ultimately I fear this article needs to go back to AfD, but perhaps a simple merge of anything useful will solve some of the problems. csloat (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, if I did not know any better, this looks like vandalism. (Igny (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC))


 * The section removed is rambling and incoherent, the meaning of terror used is inconsistent, the sources are mostly unreliable or there is overreliance on primary sources and no alternative mainstream views are presented to a least provide a veneer of neutrality. In short violates WP policy.  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Book of communism
The black book of communism does mention both communism and terrorism, but it never used them together as in "Communist terrorism". Could anyone provide another source for
 * The term is also widely used by anti-communists to describe the political repression conducted by Communist governments against the civilian population such as the Red Terror and Great Terror in the Soviet Union.

Specifically, I would like to see support for the "wide usage" of the term. (Igny (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

For now I have removed the statement as unsourced. If you want to reintroduce it, please reword it according to the source you'd have to provide. (Igny (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

lede version
I suggest the lead somewhere along the lines,


 * The term Communist terrorism is used to refer to terrorism committed by communist organizations. The term lacks a strict definition. There is a disagreement over precise definition of terrorism, and there is a dispute over connection between adherence to communist ideology and committing terrorist acts. Nevertheless there is a number of active and inactive (disbanded or destroyed) left-wing radical organizations which claimed adherence to some form of communist ideology and which were considered as terrorist by international community.


 * The term is sometimes used to refer to revolutionary terror leading to or in aftermath of communist revolutions.

I am going to look for RS to support these statements. (Igny (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

ETA
For heaven's sake, please don't reintroduce the ETA here. We can debate about the rest but I don't see how ETA fits this page under any stretch. Unless you want to introduce sources that actually identify the ETA as a "communist terrorist" group? csloat (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

details of specific groups
I don't see how items such as where the funding for this or that organization comes from belongs here at all. Each org has its own web page already; we don't need to repeat all that stuff. This article should focus on what is specifically "communist" and "terrorist" about these organizations, and we absolutely need a source that defines "communist terrorism" and identifies each of these organizations as related through that definition. We simply don't have that now, which is why this whole thing is a giant SYNTHESIS violation. csloat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideology section
The ideology section was moved to revolutionary terror in its entirety. It does not belong here, placing it here amounts to violating WP:SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

I would like to make myself absolutely clear. The section on ideology and revolutionary terror is moved to revolutionary terror. Copy pasting it back here amounts to synthesis, tendentious and POV content forking, and coat track. You are welcome to discuss. (Igny (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC))


 * This was a long stable and sourced section. This was a major and radical change to the article without consensus. It should remain in the stable version while discussed.  Much of the section comes from Kautsky's "Communism AND Terrorism" - to call it synthesis is almost silly.  There seems no article to which this material would be more appropriate. Mamalujo (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A long and stable version means nothing. If anything it means that tendentious editors prevailed here in the past. At this moment, I know at least 4 editors who support this deletion, you are alone fighting consensus here. (Igny (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC))

The article's name is SYNTH
To claim that the article tells about a separate category of terrorism ("Communist terrorism is terrorism committed by communist organizations or Communist states") is tautology and a logical fallacy, because the word "Communist" is just an adjective here, so no new category is defined by those scholars who use the words "Communist terrorism". There is no sufficient ground to claim that terrorist actions committed by several organisations that declared adherence to one or another extremist version of communist ideology can and should be combined into a separate category. There is also no proof that scholars really defined "Communist terrorism" as a separate category of terrorism. The terrorism article mentions no Communist terrorism. I also looked through AfD discussion and I found that many (if not majority) of editors who voted against the deletion conceded that the article's name is inappropriate, and proposed to rename it to something more neutral. My conclusion is that the article should be either deleted or renamed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Currently, it is just a list of terrorist organizations claiming to adhere to communist ideology. Not sure what name is appropriate, but definitely not the current POV title. (Igny (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I'm all for deleting. I honestly don't see what there is here to salvage -- all the useful information here is already in the more relevant articles in much more detail. csloat (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to delete. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

terror versus terrorism
In last couple of decades, after dissolution of USSR and declaring war on terrorism, terrorists replaced Communists as boogeymen for the Western societies. As a consequence, the notion of terrorism changed quite a bit. So my question is whether the term "terror", as in revolutionary terror, red terror, and reign of terror, is the same or different from "terrorism" as in terrorist acts, or the war on terrorism. (Igny (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The term terrorism is applied, as a rule, to non-governmental organisations, or (indirectly) to the states that support such organisations. In other words, if some state launches an official internal terror campaign, we call it "terror", not "terrorism". However, if some state supports some terrorist groups (that officially act on behalf of themselves), the state is a "terrorist state".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is all OR. I would like to see at least one scholarly source telling that "terror" and "terrorism" are different, and explaining what the difference is. One the other hand, I saw many sources (including writings by Trotsky and Kautsky) who used them in precisely the same sense. One of fine distinctions here was probably made by Lenin who officially rejected the tactics of "individual terror" (like killing the Tsar) as inefficient in favor of the "mass terror". And he explained what exactly "mass terror" means in his secret "hanging orders" and letter to comrade Kursky (now published everywhere). "Hanging orders" meant taking and executing civilian hostages (a classic terrorism tactics). The groundbreaking letter to Kursky led to creation of the famous article 58 of Soviet criminal code. Main idea: the "mass terror" against the enemies of the people must be orderly performed by "people's" courts. Yes, it were judges who must conduct the terror, according to Lenin. Do you need sources with quotes?Biophys (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not argue with Lenin claiming that terror tactics has to be used, e.g., against tsarist government officials before the revolution, or against counter-revolutionaries after. Otherwise revolutions (and not just communist revolutions as reign of terror showed) are doomed to failure. And usually success of the revolutions determine whether the groups fighting for a change are called "terrorist" or "liberation army" (case to the point:Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, the terrorists which became "liberators" and national heroes in 1990s). However terrorists nowadays seem to have a different agenda and somewhat different methods. Lenin never suggested to bomb and sink ships full of people for example just for sake of killing civilians in order to induce fear on public. And modern terrorists never tried to create GULAG. Hence my question again, is the revolutionary terror the same or different from blowing up planes?
 * The socialist revolutionaries's terror was directed against authorities, not against ordinary people, so it had nothing in common with blowing up planes. Communist Red Terror was a part of a civil war, so it also doesn't fit the terrorist act criterion. Great Purge was aimed to eliminate a representatives of certain social strata, so it also doesn't fit this criterion. Only Red Brigades' (ans similar) actions fit the criteria of terrorist act.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose of the terror conducted by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was to destroy the existing structure of society (to make the revolution), in part by increasing the misery of the ordinary people. That was also the purpose of Islamic terrorists who struggled to derail any efforts to build normal life in Iraq and Afganistan. According to Sergey Nechayev,

Biophys (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of terrorism is to incite fear, not aggravate miseries. Revolution does destroy old version of society, but to compare revolutions to terrorism is simply not right. (Igny (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Biophys, you asked for a source, so here we go:. Some relevant quotes:
 * terrorism is a political concept.
 * In contrast to its contemporary usage, at that time [French revolution] terrorism had a decidedly positive connotation. The system or regime de la terreur of 1793-4 -- from which the English word came -- was adopted as a means to establish order during the transient anarchical period of turmoil and upheaval that followed the uprisings of 1789, as it has followed in the wake of many other revolutions. Hence, unlike terrorism as it is commonly understood today, to mean a revolutionary or anti-government activity undertaken by non-state or subnational entities, the regime de la terreur was an instrument of governance wielded by the recently established revolutionary state. It was designed to consolidate the new government's power by intimidating counter-revolutionaries, subversives and all other dissidents whom the new regime regarded as `enemies of the people'. The Committee of General Security and the Revolutionary Tribunal (`People's Court' in the modern vernacular) were thus accorded wide powers of arrest and judgement, publicly putting to death by guillotine persons convicted of treasonous (i.e. reactionary) crimes. In this manner, a powerful lesson was conveyed to any and all who might oppose the revolution or grow nostalgic for the ancien regime.

So it is not as OR as you may think. (Igny (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC))


 * So, what's exactly the difference? In all these case (just as in Lenin's Hanging Order) the purpose was to terrorize the civilian population, for example by taking and executing the hostages, as well as to kill individual politicians (which Cheka and NKVD did a lot). The only difference is who does it: a gang of self-declared "authorities" or a "lone wolf". Is it really a difference? When Bolsheviks took over only a small part of Russia, they immediately started their terror by executing a part of civilian population. But that's precisely what Islamic terrorist did when they occupied certain pieces of the territory, for example in Afganistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Same did bat'ka Makhno.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case that someone does not know it. Two parties took power in the October revolution: Bolsheviks who officially preferred "mass terror" and Socialist-Revolutionary Party who officially preferred "individual terror". But the Socialist-Revolutionary Party has been physically eliminated as a result of the "mass terror" by the Bolsheviks. Biophys (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep hanging on "Lenin's Hanging Order". Did you read the historical context in ru:Телеграмма В. И. Ленина от 11.08.1918 о подавлении кулацкого восстания? Especially the parts about the civil war and hunger in Moscow and St. Petersburg? (Igny (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * re:So, what's exactly the difference? Umm, what part of "In contrast to its contemporary usage" or "unlike terrorism as it is commonly understood today" didn't you understand? (Igny (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I can certainly agree with you on one point. In the Soviet cultural tradition word "terrorist" has a decidedly positive connotation. Zelyabov and other members of "People's will" (who proudly declared themselves "terrorists") were widely regarded and officially declared the heroes. A lot of streets in Soviet cities were called their names. Even Yuri Trifonov whose father fell victim of Great Terror wrote a book that praised the self-declared Russian terrorists who killed the Tsar . That's an interesting book (I read it of course). Highly recommended.Biophys (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT article quoted by Igny tells not about the Soviet cultural tradition, so the above post is irrelevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Igny said about the positive connotation of French terror. Yes, he was right. The terrorism/terror was praised by everyone who did it, from the members of People's Will to Al-Qaeda. Hence the Soviet tradition. And they did not see any difference between the "terrorism" and "terror".Biophys (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the NYT, that praised the french terror, had an ulterior motive to do so. (Igny (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Let's vote

 * Terror=terrorism. That implies keeping all Soviet/communist terror materials in this article.
 * First choice. This is a reasonable position because word "terrorism" originated from French "terror" (see Encyclopedia Britannica and all other sources) and because all socialism/communism classics (like Trotsky and Kautsky) considered them the same.Biophys (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terror=/= terrorism. This implies placing materials about Soviet/communist terror to a separate article called Communist terror. Whatever was described in modern sources as "terrorism" (such as support of international terrorism by the officially communist states) goes to this article. Whatever was described as "terror" goes to a separate article.
 * Second choice. Indeed, the Soviet political repressions (and other similar actions by states) are more commonly described as "terror" in the modern literature. However, the distinction is not completely clear and politically motivated because blowing up the planes by state agents (e.g. from Libya) are still commonly regarded as "terrorism", while executing hostages by the Bolsheviks is not.Biophys (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terror =/= terrorism. Placing material about revolutionary terror, communist or non-communist alike, into revolutionary terror. Keeping information on terrorist organizations adhering to Communism here, provided that there are RS which put them into the same category, renaming the article into terrorist organizations and Communism. If there is not RS for combining these organizations in one category, move the article into the list terrorist organizations by ideology. Keeping any material about other types of atrocities or violence of Soviet regime in particular and Communist regimes in general in separate, more appropriately and NPOV named, articles.
 * First and only choice. Per my arguments above let us keep SYNTH out of WIkipedia as much as we possibly can. (Igny (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Of course one can create article revolutionary terror as Altenmann did. But this subject is much wider because not every revolution was a communist revolution. Biophys (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it is somewhat wider. But currently the subject is extremely underdeveloped, so it is early to speak of splitting it into subtopics especially considering there is too little difference to discuss in this aspect between communist or french revolutions. (Igny (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Trotsky: "To the terrorist we say: it is impossible to replace the masses; only in the mass movement can you find expedient expression for your heroism."  And Lenin denounced "left-wing communism".  Obviously they differentiated between terror and terrorism.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea to vote (in a form of poll) is intrinsically flawed. Not a number of editors supporting one or another version matters, but the arguments they put forward and sources they provide. The argument that the word "terrorism" originated from French "terror" is a pure logical fallacy, because, e.g., although "alcoholism" originated from "alcohol", "alcoholism" is not "alcohol", "fascism" is not "fascia", "exhibitionism" is not "exhibition", and "behaviorism" is not "behaviour". The idea to create a Communist terror article would be a WP:CFORK because the Red Terror already exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Terror=terrorism. For reasons including those stated by Biophys. Mamalujo (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and federation=federalism, empire=imperialism, Zion=Zionism, globe=globalism. Since no new rationale has been provided by you, your "vote" cannot be considered seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See also the -ism Schism


 * I don't need to provide a "new" rationale. If there is a good reason to include material. Editors need not come up with a new rationale.  The convention with regard to such matters is that votes which have no rationale may be disregarded. That is not the case here...but nice try. Mamalujo (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two votes with the same rationale are in actuality one vote, so Biophys+Mamalujo=Biophys if no additional sources (or arguments derived from the same source) have been provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this vote is a complete sham. It was initiated by an EEML member who had recently declared his intention to stay off this page in order to comply with ArbCom restrictions on other members. If he wants to edit this page now, fine, but it would be helpful to contribute constructively. Equating words that are different and switching the burden of proof and encouraging massive SYNTHESIS violations is extremely unconstructive. In any case, this vote is silly; we cannot just "vote" that A=B. Consensus does not trump Wikipedia rules on original research. csloat (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May be Biophys just used wrong choice of words. I myself, could read this section as not "let's vote" but "let's clarify our positions". I suggest section rename and all the raised issues would go away. (Igny (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * No, I mean we should vote to clarify out positions, with regard to the question raised by Igny. There are only two options here. Either terror=terrorism or terror=/=terrorism (that was question by Igny). Let's just vote and save some time. I would agree with any results of the vote (hence the "1st choice" and "2nd choice"). All my comments were precisely on the subject that I know well enough. And let make it clear: I did not officially declare anything, such as staying away of any pages "to comply with ArbCom restrictions on other members".Biophys (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the NYT article in its entirety? The thing is that indeed Trotsky and others used words terrorism and terror interchangeably. However it still does not mean that the meaning of words terror/terrorism then was the same as their meaning now. I tend to agree with NYT statements and conclusions rather than the old version of WP article where simply a number of opinions and examples of usage of the terms were piled up without any analysis. The NYT article provided an external view on development of meaning of the terms. (Igny (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Terror=/=terrorism. Incidentally, terror is a common word that usually has no political connotation.  The Four Deuces (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This vote is misguided. Its discussion confuses several things. First, the concept itself has undergone evolution, nevertheless there is a genetical connection between the subtleties of meanings. (In this respect "terror=terrorism" (in the disambiguated meaning in question)) Second, when used in collocations, you cannot substitute one word for another freely. (In this respect terror != terrorism; as an extreme example, Red Terror != Red Terrorism). If you want do decide whether revolutionary terrorism the same as revolutionary terror, you must refer to reliable sources about term usage, not to some opinion poll. If you see that some reputed sources distinguish them, while other equate them, then a disambiguation page is the correct solution, and the corresponding disambiguated articles must carefully explain which scholars use them and why. - Altenmann >t 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "If you want do decide whether revolutionary terrorism the same as revolutionary terror, you must refer to reliable sources about term usage, not to some opinion poll." I would say this proposal is universal. WP is not a democracy, so only a strength and logical consistency of arguments that are put forward (and reliability of sources that are used) matter. The very idea to resolve this issue by opinion poll is flawed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I basically meant: "revterrorism" was just an example. However I would like to add a point of caution to Paul Siebert's: "strength and logical consistency of arguments" must not turn the article talk page into an arena of original research. The final words and the bases of arguments must come from sources, not from wikipedians' wits. Otherwise it usually takes enormous time to come to consensus. - Altenmann >t 19:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: " "strength and logical consistency of arguments" must not turn the article talk page into an arena of original research." Of course, I meant that these arguments must be built based on reliable sources, and that the sources' internal logic should be preserved. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Altenmann, but this is basically my "2nd choice".Biophys (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, we cannot simply "vote" that 2+2=5. Even if we all agreed, it does not make it true. "Terror" and "terrorism" are quite clearly two different words, and reliable sources support this obvious fact. csloat (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Communist terrorism → Communist terrorist organizations — For terminological reasons. The article discusses terrorist organizations with adherence to some form of Communist ideology. (Igny (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC))


 * Stronly Oppose - The article is not just about communist terrorist organizations, a narrower scope, but about communist terrorism in general. Mamalujo (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I doubt that will improve anything. This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles:  state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups.  The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV.  To Mamlujo:  terrorists belong to organizations, otherwise they are just crazy people.  TFD (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Agreed with Four Deuces.  Fix the article first.  One exception, rename the article Communism and Terrorism, which is nice and broad. Ocaasi (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment who started this bin liner of an article. mamalujo. what a surprise. Sayerslle (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD time?
from the above discussion: "This article combines several different concepts that should be in separate articles: state terror, alleged connections between Communist governments and terrorist organizations, and leftist terrorist groups.  The combination of the three into one article is synthesis and makes it POV." I totally agree. I think this article should be deleted as a POV synthesis, and any relevant content moved to legitimate articles such as those on the above topics (state terror, alleged connections between communist governments and terrorist orgs, etc.) Thoughts? csloat (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis
I think the article should be deleted, but if it isn't going to be deleted I support the efforts to remove the illegitimate synthesis of original research. The article should be unprotected so the synthesis material can be removed, at least until the article is finally deleted. csloat (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The concept does not exist in academic literature and therefore there should be no article. There was a conspiracy theory in the 1980s that all terrorism in the world was directed from Moscow, which was popularized by the book, The Terror Network.  It was also the name the British gave to insurgents in the Malayan Emergency.  So it could be merged into those articles.  TFD (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As it stands, the article seems to be little more than a collecting-ground for 'anything the Reds did/do we can call terror'. If this is a legitimate topic, would 'capitalist terrorism' be? There is an article on 'Christian terrorism', so presumably it would be reasonable to adopt the same approach there, and lump pipe-bombing of abortion clinics together with the KKK, the Spanish inquisition, and the Crusades? No, obviously not... It reads like a synthesis to me, and one with an obvious POV. I think it could be reduced to an article on 'Terrorist organizations claiming adherence to Communist ideology', and left at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting, but Christian terrorism and islamic terrorism are actually topics of study, while Communist/communist terrorism is not. One of the sources used for the article groups terrorist groups by country, not by ideology.  TFD (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The ideas that it is synthesis or not an area of academic study are just plain wrong. If you search google scholar for the verbatim phrase ("communist terrorism" - without any permutations) it returns 240 results. If you search for communist terroism on google scholar without quotation marks, it returns over 100,0000 results - Marxist terrorism returns over 50,000. That it is synthesis or not a subject of academic study is patently false. Mamalujo (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a disingenuous argument. As I mentioned the term was used by the British to refer to insurgents during the Malayan emergency and the first two hits are for that.  But if you believe that the concept exists in academic literature then please provide me with the name of an book about the subject.  TFD (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't just a disingenuous argument, as The Four Deuces says, it is a ridiculous one if you take any notice of the figures for results without quotes. I got these results using Google Scholar:
 * Capitalist terrorism 61,000, "Capitalist terrorism" 13, Fish terrorism 38,900, 'Fish terrorism' 1, Pacifist terrorism 16,600, 'Pacifist terrorism' 1, communist breakfast 31,000, "communist breakfast" 0! A search result without quotes is merely an article that includes both words. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be plenty of sources for Communist terrorism :  Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you please recommend as single one of these sources that is about this subject. TFD (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You mix two quite different things: notability of the Communist terrorism concept and synthesis issues. Without any doubts, a number of leftist groups existed that used terrorism as a tool to achieve their political goals. Some of them (not all of them, and historically not first of them) were the Communist terrorist groups. That is a well known and indisputable fact. Had the article limit itself with the story of these groups ( such as the Baader-Meinhof Group (Germany), PFLP (Palestine), Red Brigades (Italy), Revolutionary Struggle (Greece) or Shining Path (Peru), and some others), there would be absolutely no problems with the article's neutrality of verifiability. It is worth noting that this article should be made a daughter article, or a subsection, of the Leftist terrorism article, which, along with communist terrorist groups should include, many others non-Marxist and non-Communist terrorist groups like "Narodnaya Volya", etc. BTW, this article currently redirects to the Communist terrorism article which is incorrect. However, what is a synthesis, and, therefore, what is quite unacceptable, is the attempt to combine Marxism as a doctrine, Stalinist or Maoist repressions and all other unrelated things into a single article. This is unacceptable, because "terror" ≠ "terrorism" (for the same reason why "exhibition" ≠ "exhibitionism"). --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardyplants (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked up "left-wing terrorism" in Google books and apparently it is considered to be a type of terrorism. The other types are right-wing, separatist and religious.  Here is an example.  But I do not see "communist terrorism" as a subtype.  I would suggest changing the name to "Left-wing terrorism" and using reliable sources to write the article.  TFD (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any AfD. Paul's contention that "terror" ≠ "terrorism" is incorrect, "terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms. In fact the term "terrorism" originated from the french term "terrorisme" in 1798, which is itself from the Latin "terror", and was originated with the specific sense  of  "government  intimidation  during  the  Reign  of  Terror  in  France". There are many parallels between communist terrorism of the Russian revolution and the republican terrorism of the French revolution. Communist terrorism was also a form of "government  intimidation". There are plenty of sources that discuss communist terrorism . --Martin (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Martintg, that is incorrect. Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens.  Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors.  TFD (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope. Didn't I just explain to you the etymology of the term "terrorism" above and how it was originally derived from the concept of "government intimidation" during the French Revolution? In fact the original sense of "terrorism" meant the "systematic use of terror as a policy". Ergo, "communist terrorism" is the systematic use of communist terror as a policy. --Martin (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The old meaning of the word "terrorism" differs from its contemporary meaning. Currently the word "terrorism" refers to the killing of civilians by some private group, non-governmental political organisation, etc, to create a media spectacle. Even so called contemporary "terrorist states" are the states that support one or another non-governmental terrorist group, as a rule, outside of its own border. Therefore, "terrorism" should be discriminated from:
 * Sponsorship of terrorism by some state : such a state is not a perpetrator of the terrorist acts, it is a sponsor of it (examples Iran, Libya);
 * State terror: the state does not try to intimidate its own population, it is powerful enough to eliminate all opponents (examples: Stalinism, Khmer Rouge, Indonesia, Pakistan, Latin American Juntas, etc);
 * Acts of sabotage against potential opponents: such a campaign is supposed to play a subordinated role during a military conflict. Incidentally, a notorious Chechen insurgent Shamil Basaev refused to recognise himself as a terrorist. He stated he was a saboteur, because his actions were aimed against the citizens of the state which he considered a foreign state (Russia).
 * All of that are quite different things, all of that is not "terrorism" sensu stricto, all of that is not something specific to Communism, and, importantly, all of them have their own articles. I agree that, taking into account the vagueness of the definition of the word "terrorism", all these phenomena fit some loose definitions of terrorism, however, that would be a minority POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I noticed that this article develops according to the same scenario as the Mass killings under Communist regimes did. Both these articles are quite legitimate when they are limited with quite concrete and indisputable topics, however, numerous attempts to broaden their scope lead (and will lead) to NPOV and SYNTH issues, which will inevitably lead to AfDs (which will fail because initial article's subject is quite notable), to endless disputes, page protections, and so on. Do we really need to waste our time?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Martintg, you would need a source that supports your conclusion. But in fact many cognate words have differing meanings, e.g., socialist and socialite.  TFD (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about a dictionary for a source: "a terroristic method  of  governing"? I agree with Paul that an AfD would be a waste of time and energy that would be better spent dealing with any NPOV and SYNTH issue. --Martin (talk) 05:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To save time I propose to limit the article with Communist terrorism sensu stricto (terrorism committed by Communist NGOs) and to provide links to more or less directly related articles. That would allow us to avoid any neutrality and synthesis issues as well as POV-forks. In addition, the Leftist terrorism article should be converted into the mother article of the present article, because leftist terrorism is the phenomenon which preceded Communist terrorism, is more general category and cannot be reduced to Communist terrorism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We really need to establish that the academic literature considers these two things to be the same. Even if we were to call government terror terrorism it would still be a different concept.  TFD (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A Definitions of terrorism is a very complicated issue, so I am not sure any academic consensus exists on that account. Regarding ""terror" and "terrorism" are intimately related terms", let me point out that even very inimately related terms frequently denote two different things. The fact that they are related does not mean they mean the same.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The relationship between "terror" and "terrorism", according to the Oxford English Dictionary is:
 * Terror = The state of being terrified or greatly frightened
 * Terrorism = A system of terror
 * The OED further defines "terrorism" as "a policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted", i.e. originally a policy of government, but later including a policy of non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a legal textbook and the definitions used should be guided by academic literature. TFD (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about you provide a cite to academic literature that verifies your assertion that "Terror is something carried out by a government against its citizens. Terrorism is something carried out by non-government actors". --Martin (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is "the indiscriminate use of violence... to shake their confidence in the governments". Since this article is about terrorism not terror there is no need to define terror.  However, I do not believe that many governments would commit violent acts in order to shake confidence in themselves.  TFD (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What about this:
 * " the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents" U.S. Code Title 22, Ch.38, Para. 2656f(d)--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * However these 21st Century definitions of "terrorism" are being retrospectively applied to early 20th Century scenarios; terrorism by NGOs only became the dominant phenomenon post-1950, and communist NGO terrorism was the dominant form up until the 1980s, but state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D. --Martin (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * ASK says under "State terrorism", "Many definitions of terrorism restrict it to acts by non-state actors. But it can also be argued that states can, and have, been terrorists."  We could mention that in the article, but it does not open a coatrack to list the actions of Communist governments within their jurisdictions along with non-state actors.  TFD (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "state terrorism is a type of terrorism that certainly existed in Stalin's Soviet Union, according to Amy Zalman, Ph.D." I'm not sure I'd take a brief article on About.com as definitive, but what Zalman says is interesting. Note that she doesn't single out the Soviet Union under Stalin, but also applies the term to Nazi Germany, and goes on to write:


 * "However, many would argue that democracies are also capable of terrorism. The two most prominently argued cases, in this regard, are the United States and Israel. Both are elected democracies with substantial safeguards against violations of their citizens' civil rights. However, Israel has for many years been characterized by critics as perpetrating a form of terrorism against the population of the territories it has occupied since 1967. The United States is also routinely accused of terrorism for backing not only the Israeli occupation, but for its support of repressive regimes willing to terrorize their own citizens to maintain power."http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/a/StateTerrorism.htm


 * Are we really going to accept a definition of terrorism this broad? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Martintg's view is that a Communist government is merely a collection of individual terrorists, except that they are in stronger position to terrorize. TFD (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't attribute to me things I've never said. The fact is, terrorism is a term that originally referred to government action against its own people, and was then broadened to include actions by non-government entities and individuals. That original meaning still remains. Britannica defines terrorism as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." That certain communist governments have practised terrorism against their own populations is an undeniable fact that should be mentioned in this article. Applying a definition that really only gained currency post-1950s on events that occured before that doesn't make sense --Martin (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So do you think we should exclude the actions of non-government actors, like the Red Brigade, from the article? TFD (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We should include both government and non-government actors. --Martin (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism, or is this going to be another original project? TFD (talk) 06:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure can: A book titled The history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda, which includes a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism". Here is a nice quote in the last paragraph of that chapter on page 207 which could be added to the article: "Of all the totalitarian regimes, that of the Soviet Union was, between 1929 and 1953, the most perfect embodiment of state terrorism. No other country had ever been so systematically subjected to terror imposed by the apparatus of a police state". What do you think? --Martin (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another book that discusses both government and non-government communist terrorism: "Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism", published by the University of Queensland Press. --Martin (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My word, here is yet another tome: Terrorism: a history, which has a chapter titled "The Era of State Terror" about Uncle Joe's blood soaked worker's paradise and another titled "The Era of Leftist and International Terrorism" which discusses the Red Brigades, etc. --Martin (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems there are sources that cover communist state terrorism and as such they should have a place, and in lieu of this source I rescind my above comment. Hardyplants (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Can you provide an example of a book that combines the two for Communism? There may be books that combine terror and terrorism - I never said there were not - but you need a book that combines Communist state terror with Communist terrorism.  My guess is that none exist and what you are suggesting is a novel interpretation of sources.  TFD (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just presented three books above that does just what you are asking. Please explain how a book about the history of terrorism that explicitly has a chapter titled "Lenin, Stalin and State Terrorism" not combine Communist state terror with Communist terrorism? All three books discuss the history of terrorism and includes both state terrorism and non-state terrorism perpetrated by communists. The mind boggles at your novel interpretation of these sources. --Martin (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They may combine state terror and terrorism but they treat Communist state terror and Communist terrorism as separate topics. If you want to show that they are treated as the same thing, then you must find a book that does this.  I.e., find a book called Communist terrorism.  Otherwise this is just more synthesis.  In fact, even fringe theorists do not do this.  TFD (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you are moving the goal posts. You originally asked for a book that combines the two, I present three, now you ask for a book that combines the two in the same chapter! But that is irrelevant, because these books treat Communist state and non-state terrorism in the same single topic of the history of terrorism. --Martin (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here is your logic:
 * State terror and terrorism may treated as a single topic.
 * Communist states commited state terror.
 * Communists committed terrorism.
 * Therefore Communist state terror and Communist terrorism may be treated as a single topic.

My request to you is to find a source that actually does this, e.g., a book called Communist terrorism. Please avoid original syntheses of concepts that do not exist in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have presented three books that describes the history of terrorism, presenting that history chronologically in each chapter. Seems to me you are providing as novel synthesis the notion that since each period is presented in a separate chapter, there is no relationship between them. As I asked previously, please provide a source that states there is no relationship between communist state and non-state terrorism. --Martin (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not saying there is no connection between them, I am asking you to explain the connection between. For example this book it refers to "left-wing terrorism" as part of its typology.  Where is your source that refers to "Communist terror and terrorism"?  It appears you have made a novel synthesis, and refusing to provide sources explaining your concept is unhelpful.  I am sure that I could create an article called "Eastern European terrorism" by combining the actions of Nazi collaborators, the contemporary far right and Stalinist governments, but that would be synthesis.  In any case point to a page in any of your sources that explain the topic you think this article should be about.  TFD (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be basing your argument on your source's omission of mentioning communist state terror in discussing "left-wing terrorism" (which happily mentions Nazi state terror in discussing "right-wing terrorism"), rather than any explicit claim there is no connection. Your source in discussing "left-wing terrorism" references a college level text book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues By Gus Martin, which seems to have an excellent treatment of the connection between Marxist ideology and terrorism, this will be a good source for expanding the section "History and ideology of Communist terrorism". Thanks for that. --Martin (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At this juncture, can I point out that WikiPedia already has an article on State Terrorism, why should such terrorism need to have its own separate treatment if perpetrated by states run by (self-described) communists, given that state terrorism has been carried out by states that are clearly not communist by any definition? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am basing "my argument" on the fact that you have provided no sources whatsoever to support your viewpoint. That does not mean you are wrong.  If can support your views with any type of source whatsoever then an article is possible, but otherwise it is not.  Your book actually treats state terror (both left and right) as belonging to one category and terrorism (both left and right) as belonging to another.  Remember too that the Left is not entirely Marxist, and there is no category for Communist terrorism.  If we combine terror and terrorism for the Left, then we need to include acts of state terror committed by social democratic governments in Europe and the UK.  TFD (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The books I cited are sufficient, it seems to be your viewpoint is that these chronologically based chapters represent some sort of "classification" and support your argument via omission of communist state terrorism in a book that uses a college level text book as a reference. It is well known that the so called "left-wing" communist non-state terrorism generally refers to the period from the 1950's to the 1980/90's, when it morphed after the period of communist state terrorism of the 1920s to 1950s. However the underlaying motivation/ideology remains the unifying factor as Gus Martin lucidly explains in his book Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. I propose that this article has four main sections: "Ideology", "Pre-1917 revolutionary terrorism", "Pre-1950s state terrorism" and "Post-1950s international terrorism". I think that would nicely reflect how communist terrorism evolved over time. --Martin (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You might point out where he says this. BTW left-wing terrorism pre-dates Communism since it existed in the 19th century.  The Polish American anarchist Leon Czolgosz for example killed the U.S. president 16 years before the Russian Revolution.  TFD (talk)

Here is a book that connects terrorism, mass killing and communism: Hardyplants (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In the chart Rummel claims that official Communist parties in China, Spain and Vietnam committed mass killings partly partly motivated by Communism, but he does not write about what we would normally call terrorists. However maybe we should merge Mass killings under Communist regimes into this article.  TFD (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the book Hardyplants cites, Communists did indeed use mass killing as a form of terrorism, but Mass killings under Communist regimes already exceeds 100k, this article will no doubt be just as large after it is expanded, so merging just won't work. --Martin (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We need wider input into this and I will set up an RfC. TFD (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing implications that all western communist groups used terror tactics
As it stood after the last edit by Marting, the 2nd paragraph seemed to imply that all western communist groups used terrorist tactics. I'll assume this wasn't intended. I've also edited the 'Views of Marxis[t] theoreticians... section to indicate that the supposed Marx quote is lacking a direct reference, and corrected some spelling mistakes. I'm not happy with the article, as I still consider it has POV and synthesis problems, but at least for now it isn't potentially libellous! AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead
The lead begins, "Communist terrorism, state and dissident, is terrorism committed by various movements that claimed adherence to the doctrines of Karl Marx, both during the revolutionary struggle and also in the consolidation of power after victory". (Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. SAGE. p. 218. Since the source says no such thing I will delete this sentence.  TFD (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It most certainly does, the paragraph on page 218 states:
 * "Marxist socialism was pragmatic and revolutionary. It was action oriented and was adopted by many revolutionary leaders and movements throughout the 20th century. For example, Vladimie Ilich Lenin in Russia, Moao Zedong in China, Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and Fidel Castro in Cuba all based their revolutionary doctrines on Marx's precepts. Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory".
 * Note that the source explicitly names those leaders whose movements had engaged in terrorism in both the revolutionary phase and after consolidation of power, I had omitted naming any specific person in the lede. --Martin (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not use the term "Communist/communist" and certainly does not mention, let alone define, "Communist/communist terrorism". Find a source to support the unique concept that you have chosen for this article.  TFD (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You were bold and removed that paragraph in the lede, I reverted you and now we are supposed to discuss it here, per WP:BRD, but instead you reverted it. I think this is disruptive. Gus Martin certainly uses term "communist" several times in the preceding paragraphs on page 218 when he discusses Marxist ideology, the context is quite clear to who he is referring to as the adherents of "marxist socialism" and who resorted to terrorism. Your removal of the text is unjustified. --Martin (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research.  TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the sources presented and discuss them, rather than continue this mantra "Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Please explain why you don't believe Gus Martin was referring to communists in the context of his discussion on page 218 when he states "Terrorism, both state and dissident, was used during these revolutions and during the consolidations of power after victory". Which revolutions was he referring to? --Martin (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not unreasonable to ask for a source that uses the term "communist terrorism" and explains what it means. If I havde to read through a book to understand what you are talking about, then it is OR.  It is unreasonable to interpret sources in order to develop one's own concept.  In any case, you may discuss this further at the OR noticeboard.  TFD (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is unreasonable claim I am mis-interpreting a source but then not provide your take of what you believe the source is actually saying. Again, I ask, what is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 02:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Preparations for terrorism and sabotage operations against Western countries
This section relies on primary sources and should be based on reliable secondary sources that have been able to evaluate the claims. TFD (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC: What is Communist terrorism?
What is Communist/communist terrorism? Is it:
 * 1) state terror under Communist regimes?
 * 2) terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
 * 3) state terror under Communist regimes and terrrorist acts committed by non-state actors claiming to be Marxist?
 * 4) a term that has no recognized meaning?
 * 5) none of the above?

TFD (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I could not find any evidence that the term Communist/communist terrorism is used. The insurgents in the Malayan Emergency were of course called "Communist Terrorists" or CTs by the British, which is where the largest number of hits for the term goes.  But they have their own separate article.  State terror is usually distinguished from terrorism, and communist terrorist groups are normally grouped under Left-wing terrorism.  TFD (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "What is Communist/communist terrorism?"? I think set theory from mathematics gives the only sensible answer here. Ii is the intersection of the 'set of all those claiming to be communists' and the 'set of all those who practise terror'. Unless there is anything special about this intersection, it is of no significance, and is just an arbitrary category. People of almost all political ideologies have carried out acts which fit within a broad definition of 'terrorism', but do they each deserve their own article? I'd say I recognise the meaning of the term, I just don't see its validity as an article for inclusion in Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are kidding me, right? We have an infobox with a whole section on terrorism by ideology: Anarchist terrorism, Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Narcoterrorism, Nationalist terrorism and Religious terrorism. In any case, the area is amply covered in the literature. Note that Anarchism is also considered "left wing", but it has its own article, and for good reason, "left wing" is too broad a category to include all the permutations. --Martin (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you need to understand what is communist terrorism is, Gus Martin's book gives a most excellent explanation that links both state and dissident terrorism together with Marxist dogma. --Martin (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have to ask this, Martin, but given your somewhat gushing description of Gus Martin's book, and also given that you are User:Marting, are you in any way related to the author? I'm fully prepared to accept that this may be coincidence, and merely paranoia and/or bad manners on my part to ask, but I'm sure others may wonder the same thing if it isn't clarified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a legitimate question, Andy. I can assure you that I am not Gus Martin. Martin is my first name, not my surname. --Martin (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that, Martin. Maybe I am paranoid! I'll see if I can get hold of Gus Martin's book somewhere - I may have seen it in a library. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course he is not Gus Martin. Martin's book is mainstream while Martintg's views are fringe (in fact do not even exist in fringe literature).  Martintg, where in this book do you think there is a basis for your analysis?  TFD (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your endorsement of Gus Martin as mainstream, why are you not accepting his view that both state and dissident terrorism was perpetrated by communists who adhered to Marxist ideology? --Martin (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that you using a concept that you have invented, which would be original research.  TFD (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This mantra of yours is unhelpful. Please explain in what way Gus Martin's view is not being adequately conveyed in the text. What is your interpretation of what Gus Martin is saying? --Martin (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied above. TFD (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * But you haven't answered my question. You evidently think I have misinterpreted what Gus Martin is saying, so please, give me your take on what Gus is actually saying. --Martin (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Gus Martin never mentions "Communist/communist terrorism". TFD (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does he mention? --Martin (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have sources to support your views then please present them. If we have to use our intuition and intellectual ability to understand arcane knowledge then we need a reliable secondary source that explains it.  911 was an inside job, Hitler got a bad rap and aspartame can kill you - just read the secret signals that the New World Order is hiding.  Really, if you want to show that a point of view exists, please provide a source that presents it.  TFD (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How come you keep evading the question? What in your opinion is Gus Martin saying? --Martin (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss improvements to the article not for general discussion of the topic. Whether I agree or disagree with Martin is irrelevant.  TFD (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

In the name of terrorism Terrorism: a philosophical analysis some sources talking about communist terrorisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give us the relevent page references for a discussion on 'communist terorism' in these references, or is this just the result of running a search for the two words, and posting the result? The first seems to be about the Johnson administration's attempt to label the Viet Cong as 'terrorists' while diverting attention from the US military's own acts of political violence against the Vietnamese civilian population.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Chapter 2 called The Vietnam War and the Communist Terrorists would be the place to start on the first link. The second book link is right there whe nyou follow the link, chapter 5, all about Trosky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.20.28.30 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From 'In the name of terrorism', page 19: "For the Johnson administration, the terrorism label functioned more to delineate the agents who conducted violent acts than it did to parse the specific nature of their activities. The resulting double standard allowed American soldiers to commit essentially the same acts that qualified as Viet Cong terrorism in official US accounts". The chapter isn't about 'communist terrorism' at all, it is about how the US government used the label to justify their own acts of political violence. Is that too difficult to understand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As for chapter 5 of the 2nd book you linked to being 'all about Trotsky', it isn't, as you'd know if you'd actually read it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment With regards to the RFC i would go with number 3 on the list, Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist. That would be about right i reckon mark nutley (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon? 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state...'? The USSR no longer exists, and the PIRA has disarmed, and in any case was neither state-sponsored (which state?) nor communist - or have you got any evidence to the contrary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you get state sponsored terrorism, the PIRA (you actually think they have disbanded lmao) were sponsored by the USSR, this is well documented, a lot of terrorist groups were given arms and training from moscow. mark nutley (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when has 'lmao' been a civil response to anything? As far as I'm aware, PIRA received support from many sources, and the biggest single source outside Ireland may have been from supporters in the United States. If you have evidence about PIRA funding and other support from the USSR please provide it, and while you are at it, how about some evidence to back up your claim that they are 'communist'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You think the IRA have disbanded, so sorry for the lmao but i`m irish and know better.  some light reading to bring you up to speed on IRA USSR connections mark nutley (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote 'disarmed' not 'disbanded', though I'd not be that surprised if they have a rusty rifle or two buried in a field somewhere. In any case whatever the PIRA did or are doing, it is only relevant to an article on communist terrorism if they were/are communist. can you provide a source that states this, if it isn't given in the latest links you provide - I've not looked at these yet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They fall under state sponsored terrorism which was what you asked about. Both links will give you a short overview of the IRA`s funding from the USSR, the were also a little communist with the provo`s denouncing them for it. Sources are not hard to find on this really, they were always getting infiltrated by grass`s. (More than a rusty rifle or two hidden away as well btw :) ) mark nutley (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the links is to an anonymous blog, and the other is about events in 1925. You also seem to be confused as to whether it is PIRA or the 'official' IRA that are/were communist, if I understand you correctly. The fact that they received assistance from the USSR is no proof of their politics, particularly when they received more from the USA and Libya (unless you want to try to label Libya as communist: a highly dubious proposition), and have historically received support from many sources, including Nazi Germany during WW2 - see e.g. IRA_Abwehr_World_War_II. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous Blog? I think not and hosted by stanford. Look you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR which is State sponsored terrorism, this is what i gave you. Events in 1925 does not matter, the USSR funded terrorism, job done mark nutley (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The link you've just provided is to another website entirely. You specified the PIRA, which didn't exist in 1925. Given your complete disregard for actually verifying what you are arguing, I can see no point in discussing this further. You've provided no evidence whatever that the PIRA are/were communist, or that the assistance they received from the USSR was of any more ideological significance than that they got elsewhere, so they are of no relevance to this article. Job done AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No i said IRA, you asked for a few links showing IRA funding from the USSR see? The website is the same, look at the url. They got assistance from the USSR, proven. So state sponsored terrorism, Proven. If you want further links just ask. mark nutley (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What you said Mark, was this 'Communist terrorism is committed by the state, state sponsored (as in the USSR and PIRA) groups who call themselves communist'. PIRA not IRA. You've provided no evidence that either PIRA or IRA have ever called themselves communist. And like I said, they've taken assistance from all sorts of sources, state and otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My response is a bit simpler. Options 1 and 2 are fairly distinct, without a necessary continuity between their methods, practictioners, and justifications. As far as wikipedia is concerned, Communist terrorism should be a disambiguation page referring to two separate pages as described in 1 and 2. Also, there should be no terror-ism in the state terror... page. And thirdly, if it's a disambiguation page consider also linking to Terrorism and Communism, the book by Trotsky.--Carwil (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is essentially what has been argued already - that the article is a synthesis of two different issues, without any real analytical connection or continuity. You're right about Trotsky's book needing to be referred to in addition, though ideally, it could have an article of its own, given its continuing relevance to the debate about what 'terrorism' is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Right andy, please note The IRA A Communist Group, tole you my head was all over the place yesterday but i think i got there in the end mark nutley (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding. This book seems to have been written for secondary-school pupils. And can you please provide page numbers with your links, it is entirely unreasonable to expect people to look through an entire book for confirmation of your arguments. Unless you do, I see no reason to take your claims seriously AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your impressions of the book are irrelevant it is wp:rs, The link leads right to the page mate, but it is page 24. I had not realized you were unable to figure out that the link was to the page as it works for me. mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

History of terrorism
I find it strange that this article does not discuss evolution of the terminology. Clearly the terror in the past(e.g., revolutionary terror) and terrorism nowadays are two different things. And yet nothing of the sort is discussed here. There is no even a reference to a classic History of terrorism, even though far more dubious Mitrokhin archive is used. But I understand the desire of certain POV-pushers to create tendentious articles, full of OR and SYNTH. (Igny (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC))
 * The article does not discuss the evolution of the terminology because no terminology exists that describes "Communist terrorism" as opposed to revolutionary terrorism, leftist terrorism or state terror in totalitarian states. "Communist" does not point at any features specific to Communism and is just an adjective.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Revolutionary", "leftist" and "state" are adjectives too. I have presented a number of sources that explicitly discuss the characteristics of communist terrorism (which is a subset of leftist terrorism along with anarchist and eco-terrorism), but I get the impression that some people appear to be playing a terminology game as if Wikipedia is a dictionary and we need to find sources that explicitly uses the exact magic phrase, while all the while avoiding discussion of what these sources, like Gus Martin, are actually saying. I think the article terrorism goes into the history of the term, so I don't see why it should be repeated here. --Martin (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Left-wing terrorism does not include state terror. No reliable sources describe communist terrorism as a subset of Marxist terrorism.  Even categorizing individual left-wing terrorist groups as Marxist would be problematic.  Often some terrorists in a group will claim to Marxist, others will adhere to some other ideology, some will combine Marxism with something else, and many will have very little understanding of ideology at all.  TFD (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edits
[IP72.20.28.30] has removed the POV tags with the notation "you can`t have pov tags without a section on the talk page showing what is pov that is policy and will change ref page to 44" and changed the page reference with the notation "change page neumber to right one". However there is an RfC about the meaning of the subject and no reference to "communist terrorism" on the page presented by the IP as a source on p. 44. TFD (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure of the rules, but if this is clear-cut, can't it just be reverted? As for doubtful references, see my comments about the supposed links the IP gave in the 'RfC: What is Communist terrorism?' section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The IP's comment, "read the book again, it mentions communist terrorsim 77 times" is misleading. In fact a search of the book says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism"".  He should also be aware that there is a dispute about the neutrality of the article.  Incidentally Martintg has been blocked for a week and is topic-banned from this article anyway.  I will put back the tags and remove the unsourced text.  TFD (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book. You broke the rules be reverting more than three times. Page 44 certainly does mention Communist terrorism of course your link just shows the cover so i reckon you have not actually seen it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.221.25 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Before accusing people of breaking rules, it is a good idea to check what they actually are: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts... on a single page within a 24-hour period." TFD has not done this. [|WP:3RR]. Can you cite the relevant passage from p. 44, so we can all see what the debate is about? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted the POV tag removed by 88.108.221.25, as there is clearly a content dispute going on, and the IP gave no response to TFD's argument that it should remain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * IP, the comment, "Your link is to the book cover, not a search on the book" is misleading. Yes, my link shows the book cover.  But it is a search for the term "communist terrorism" and it says, "No results found in this book for "communist terrorism".  Obviously if the term is used nowhere in the bbok it will not appear on page 44, but here is a link to that page anyway.  TFD (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your wrong there, page 158 Ideological Communist Terrorism, 286 soviets did help inflame terrorist incidents, in fact the book has communism all over it, what`s the issue with this? mark nutley (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to p. 158. No mention of ideological communist terrorism.  It may appear obvious to you that there is a concept called "communist terrorism" but unless you find a source that explains it, it is you own personal synthesis.  TFD (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry it was 159, my bad :) Funny thing is the ip guy posted a couple of links above which discuss communist terrorism, it is clearly not my own personal concept :) mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And what does it say on page 44? This is the supposed source that was used by 72.20.28.30 to justify his edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Page 159 refers to "ideological communal terrorism". Communal terrorism is defined as "Group against group terrorism, in which rival demographic groups engage in political violence against each other".  (p. 5).  TFD (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It discuss communism though right? sorry for the misread mark nutley (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please find a source that uses the term "Communist/communist terrorism" that explains what it means. If you cannot do this, then I can only assume that the concept is original research.  TFD (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source presented does just that, it is about communist terrorism after all, what`s your issue with it? It`s book on terrorism with a chapter about communist terrorism after all How can it be OR when google books has 4,190 for "communist terrorism"? Obviously the concept exists mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The book does not have a chapter about communist terrorism, as is clear from perusing the table of contents, and never uses the term communist terrorism let alone define it. TFD (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ideological communal terrorism is about communism is it not? What part of the list there is not about communist terrorism? All the groups named within it are communist mark nutley (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you really not know the difference between 'communal' and 'communist', mark nutley? And which list are you referring to, on what page? We have had far too many vague references to Gus Martin's book already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ideological communal terrorism is about communism this entire section of the book is about communist terrorism, why is this so difficult to get? mark nutley (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'ideological communal terrorism' section is two pages. It briefly discusses events in Greece, Angola, and Indonesia. The first two were civil wars, where all factions used political violence, and Gus Martin says nothing specific regarding the 'communists'. As for Indonesia: "During a wave of anticommunist communal violence, much of it done by gangs supported by the government, roughly 500,000 communists, suspected communists, and political opponents of the government were killed" (P. 160) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So does it or does it not mention communist groups within that section? mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. It also mentions other groups using political violence. So how is it 'about communist terrorism'? And is the section about the murder of half a million political opponents of the Indonesian government about communist terrorism? You made a specific claim that this section was 'about communist terrorism'. It isn't. It is about exactly what it says it is. Some of the perpetrators of violence have been communists, but so have some of the victims. Gus Martin seems to make no significant distinction between the different ideologies in his analysis, which is why it has been argued his book isn't a valid reference for 'communist terrorism' as a theoretical/analytic construct. By the way, you haven't yet told us where the 'list' you referred to can be found in the book. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry been all over the place today and got my refs messed up, see here for the ever elusive list :) mark nutley (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about "Extreme Left Terrorism" "whose ideologies were based on various interpretations of marxism and/or anarchism". I already agreed that there is a category called "left-wing terrorism" which btw excludes state terror.  TFD (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, from the abstract The aim of this paper is to analyze the strategy and tactics of the of extreme left terrorism in Europe. Traditional red terrorist organizations (combatant communist parties like the RAF, the RB etc.) It clearly is about communist terrorist groups as well. mark nutley (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)